ADVERTISEMENTS
In attempting a sketch of Egyptian history, it is well to enumerate the sources whence our knowledge is derived, and the materials by the study of which only it can be prosecuted. These consist of the Bible, the existing monuments, and historical documents.
The first is by far the most important, by reason of its authority, and the nature of the facts which it records. It is necessary, however, to guard the reader against falling into a mistake in reference to the chronology commonly printed as a portion of the sacred Scriptures. While for the facts as recorded in the Bible we lay claim to a complete authenticity, this claim must not be supposed to extend to words in which the ancient manuscripts are themselves discordant, and still less to the interpretations assigned to these words by fallible men. The construction of a complete chronological system, which shall carry with it conclusive authority in all its parts, is a problem yet to be accomplished, but one of which perhaps it may be said, that we are rapidly approaching its satisfactory solution. Such a system, whenever it is fully established, will be found in perfect harmony with the Divine revelations in the Bible. At present, however, the subject, by reason of its obscurity, is attended with some difficulty. The space of time which elapsed from the creation to the birth of Christ is generally divided into certain great periods, the earliest of which are from the creation to the deluge, from the deluge to the birth of Abraham, from the birth of Abraham to the Exodus of the Israelites, and from the Exodus to the building of the temple. A remarkable difference is found to exist between the numbers recorded in the Hebrew manuscripts of the book of Genesis, from which our authorized English translation of the Bible is made, and those contained in the Greek Septuagint version of the Scriptures, made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about two hundred and fifty years before Christ. The numbers in the latter are corroborated by their substantial agreement with those given in the writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian. The difference between these two independent authorities, the Hebrew and the Septuagint, each of which presents claims to be considered the correct reading of the word of God, is about six hundred years from the creation to the deluge, and seven hundred years from the deluge to the birth of Abraham, with differences less important in the succeeding epochs. The arrangement of the chronological dates of the events recorded in the Bible must depend on the previous question, which of these varying classes of authority is to be preferred. Archbishop Usher, from whom our ordinary chronology proceeds, adopted that of the Hebrew manuscripts as given to us by the Maronite Jews, and the dates which were fixed upon by him were chosen out of many opinions having more or less of authority in their favour. Perhaps in the choice made by him he exercised a wise judgment; it is no reflection, however, on him to say, that possibly he was mistaken. A difference in judgment with archbishop Usher and the advocates of the contracted chronology, may be so far from being the result of opposition to the word of God, as to proceed from a profound respect to it, and a willingness to be wholly subject to its unerring teaching. Accordingly, some of the most learned, and at the same time most devout Biblical scholars, have not hesitated to give the preference to the extended chronology, which was used in the earlier ages of the Christian church, and is sustained by the testimony of the Septuagint and Josephus.
So long a reference has been made to this difficult and intricate subject of chronology, in order to remove from the mind of the reader any vague apprehension of irreconcilable opposition between the conclusions of Egyptian researches and the contents of the sacred volume. The results of the investigations of science and of literature, when faithfully conducted, ever have been, and it may be safely affirmed, ever will be in harmony with the word of the all-wise and beneficent Creator. It is not yet absolutely certain that the information afforded by Egyptian monuments is irreconcilable even with the contracted chronology of archbishop Usher, but it is admitted on all hands to be perfectly reconcilable with the extended chronology of the Septuagint and Dr. Hales, so that the believer in Divine revelation has nothing whatever to fear from any boasted antiquity of the Egjrptian annals. The result of investigations on this subject has been singularly fatal, step after step, to the boasted wisdom and prophetic spirit of the opponents of revelation. When darkness overhung the monuments of Egypt, it was a common practice for the infidel to appeal to them, as affording indubitable proofs of facts quite in contradiction to the statements of Moses. Volney did not hesitate impudently to assert, that the comparatively modem temple of Esneh was older by some hundred years than the date assigned by Usher to the creation of the world, and to anticipate, with profane satisfaction, the complete subversion of the Christian faith by the evidence of antiquity, to be furnished when the Egyptian hieroglyphics should be deciphered. For a time the believers in revelation were unable to read the evidence to which the infidel appealed, but modest and persevering research has enabled them out of this armoury to select weapons for his overthrow, has falsified all his predictions, and demonstrated and manifested the wisdom which belongs only to the Ancient of days. A most interesting letter is preserved from Champollion, whose name is identified with the most valuable discoveries in Egyptian hieroglyphics, in which he affirms distinctly his own conviction of the absence of any chronological discrepancy between the records of Scripture and the facts recorded on the monuments. The letter refers to one of his publications, containing a recapitulation of his historical and chronological discoveries. " They will find," he writes, alluding to the adversaries of revelation, "in it an absolute reply to their calumnies, since I have demonstrated that no Egyptian monument is really older than the year 2,200 before our era. This certainly is a very high antiquity, but it presents nothing contradictory to the sacred histories, and I venture to affirm that it establishes them on all points; for it is, in fact, by adopting the chronology and the succession of kings given by the Egyptian monuments, that the Egyptian history wonderfully accords with the sacred writings."
The second class of materials for the history of Egypt consists of the tombs, temples, and monuments of all kinds, which survive the lapse of ages, together with the valuable inscriptions in explanation of them. There are here and there throughout all the monuments the names of kings, and the dates of their reigns, besides several tables of genealogy, giving in succession the names and titles of the sovereigns who have ruled in Egypt.
The third class of materials consists of the writings of the ancient historians. These are by no means so easily adjusted as the two former classes, and from their fragmentary nature the principal difficulty has arisen in the elucidation of Egyptian history. The most important of these historians is Manetho. He was a learned Egyptian, native of Sebennytus, a town of the Delta, and thence surnamed the Sebennyte. By some he is affirmed to have been a priest and scribe of Heliopolis. M. Bunsen, however, who has devoted much research to the vindication of his historical character, supposes him to have been born and to have lived at Thebes. At the suggestion of Ptolemy he wrote a work on Egyptian history in three books. It was derived from the Egyptian records, and was written in Greek, about two hundred years before Christ. The first book comprehends the period before history is certain - the reigns of the gods; and the other two books embrace the dynasties of Egypt down to the conquest by Alexander. After the reigns of the gods, Manetho enumerates thirty-one dynasties, or, as reduced by Bunsen, thirty. The same writer distinguishes between the records of the authentic Maoetho, and spurious personages who may have borne his name. He affirms that Manetho's work comprised a period of 8,555 years, although many of his reigns are to be esteemed as contemporary. The work of Manetho is lost, and only fragments of it remain, preserved in the writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian, Eusebius, and Sjmcellus. The value of Manetho’s work has been greatly enhanced by its manifest agreement in so many particulars with the testimonies of the monuments.
Another Egyptian historian is Eratosthenes of Cyrene, who was superintendent of the Alexandrian library somewhat later than the date of Manetho. He constructed a catalogue of kings of Egypt from information given him by the scribes of Thebes. This work also has perished, and our knowledge of it is derived from Syncellus, who copied the parts he has preserved from ApoUodorus of Athens. Herodotus and Diodorus Sicuhis come in as helps to the difficult task of arranging the order of the kings, and Ornish information derived from the inquiries made by them in the age in which they lived. These are the principal materials from which Egyptian history has to be compiled, and we now present a brief enumeration of the events of which it is composed.
The first is by far the most important, by reason of its authority, and the nature of the facts which it records. It is necessary, however, to guard the reader against falling into a mistake in reference to the chronology commonly printed as a portion of the sacred Scriptures. While for the facts as recorded in the Bible we lay claim to a complete authenticity, this claim must not be supposed to extend to words in which the ancient manuscripts are themselves discordant, and still less to the interpretations assigned to these words by fallible men. The construction of a complete chronological system, which shall carry with it conclusive authority in all its parts, is a problem yet to be accomplished, but one of which perhaps it may be said, that we are rapidly approaching its satisfactory solution. Such a system, whenever it is fully established, will be found in perfect harmony with the Divine revelations in the Bible. At present, however, the subject, by reason of its obscurity, is attended with some difficulty. The space of time which elapsed from the creation to the birth of Christ is generally divided into certain great periods, the earliest of which are from the creation to the deluge, from the deluge to the birth of Abraham, from the birth of Abraham to the Exodus of the Israelites, and from the Exodus to the building of the temple. A remarkable difference is found to exist between the numbers recorded in the Hebrew manuscripts of the book of Genesis, from which our authorized English translation of the Bible is made, and those contained in the Greek Septuagint version of the Scriptures, made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about two hundred and fifty years before Christ. The numbers in the latter are corroborated by their substantial agreement with those given in the writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian. The difference between these two independent authorities, the Hebrew and the Septuagint, each of which presents claims to be considered the correct reading of the word of God, is about six hundred years from the creation to the deluge, and seven hundred years from the deluge to the birth of Abraham, with differences less important in the succeeding epochs. The arrangement of the chronological dates of the events recorded in the Bible must depend on the previous question, which of these varying classes of authority is to be preferred. Archbishop Usher, from whom our ordinary chronology proceeds, adopted that of the Hebrew manuscripts as given to us by the Maronite Jews, and the dates which were fixed upon by him were chosen out of many opinions having more or less of authority in their favour. Perhaps in the choice made by him he exercised a wise judgment; it is no reflection, however, on him to say, that possibly he was mistaken. A difference in judgment with archbishop Usher and the advocates of the contracted chronology, may be so far from being the result of opposition to the word of God, as to proceed from a profound respect to it, and a willingness to be wholly subject to its unerring teaching. Accordingly, some of the most learned, and at the same time most devout Biblical scholars, have not hesitated to give the preference to the extended chronology, which was used in the earlier ages of the Christian church, and is sustained by the testimony of the Septuagint and Josephus.
So long a reference has been made to this difficult and intricate subject of chronology, in order to remove from the mind of the reader any vague apprehension of irreconcilable opposition between the conclusions of Egyptian researches and the contents of the sacred volume. The results of the investigations of science and of literature, when faithfully conducted, ever have been, and it may be safely affirmed, ever will be in harmony with the word of the all-wise and beneficent Creator. It is not yet absolutely certain that the information afforded by Egyptian monuments is irreconcilable even with the contracted chronology of archbishop Usher, but it is admitted on all hands to be perfectly reconcilable with the extended chronology of the Septuagint and Dr. Hales, so that the believer in Divine revelation has nothing whatever to fear from any boasted antiquity of the Egjrptian annals. The result of investigations on this subject has been singularly fatal, step after step, to the boasted wisdom and prophetic spirit of the opponents of revelation. When darkness overhung the monuments of Egypt, it was a common practice for the infidel to appeal to them, as affording indubitable proofs of facts quite in contradiction to the statements of Moses. Volney did not hesitate impudently to assert, that the comparatively modem temple of Esneh was older by some hundred years than the date assigned by Usher to the creation of the world, and to anticipate, with profane satisfaction, the complete subversion of the Christian faith by the evidence of antiquity, to be furnished when the Egyptian hieroglyphics should be deciphered. For a time the believers in revelation were unable to read the evidence to which the infidel appealed, but modest and persevering research has enabled them out of this armoury to select weapons for his overthrow, has falsified all his predictions, and demonstrated and manifested the wisdom which belongs only to the Ancient of days. A most interesting letter is preserved from Champollion, whose name is identified with the most valuable discoveries in Egyptian hieroglyphics, in which he affirms distinctly his own conviction of the absence of any chronological discrepancy between the records of Scripture and the facts recorded on the monuments. The letter refers to one of his publications, containing a recapitulation of his historical and chronological discoveries. " They will find," he writes, alluding to the adversaries of revelation, "in it an absolute reply to their calumnies, since I have demonstrated that no Egyptian monument is really older than the year 2,200 before our era. This certainly is a very high antiquity, but it presents nothing contradictory to the sacred histories, and I venture to affirm that it establishes them on all points; for it is, in fact, by adopting the chronology and the succession of kings given by the Egyptian monuments, that the Egyptian history wonderfully accords with the sacred writings."
The second class of materials for the history of Egypt consists of the tombs, temples, and monuments of all kinds, which survive the lapse of ages, together with the valuable inscriptions in explanation of them. There are here and there throughout all the monuments the names of kings, and the dates of their reigns, besides several tables of genealogy, giving in succession the names and titles of the sovereigns who have ruled in Egypt.
The third class of materials consists of the writings of the ancient historians. These are by no means so easily adjusted as the two former classes, and from their fragmentary nature the principal difficulty has arisen in the elucidation of Egyptian history. The most important of these historians is Manetho. He was a learned Egyptian, native of Sebennytus, a town of the Delta, and thence surnamed the Sebennyte. By some he is affirmed to have been a priest and scribe of Heliopolis. M. Bunsen, however, who has devoted much research to the vindication of his historical character, supposes him to have been born and to have lived at Thebes. At the suggestion of Ptolemy he wrote a work on Egyptian history in three books. It was derived from the Egyptian records, and was written in Greek, about two hundred years before Christ. The first book comprehends the period before history is certain - the reigns of the gods; and the other two books embrace the dynasties of Egypt down to the conquest by Alexander. After the reigns of the gods, Manetho enumerates thirty-one dynasties, or, as reduced by Bunsen, thirty. The same writer distinguishes between the records of the authentic Maoetho, and spurious personages who may have borne his name. He affirms that Manetho's work comprised a period of 8,555 years, although many of his reigns are to be esteemed as contemporary. The work of Manetho is lost, and only fragments of it remain, preserved in the writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian, Eusebius, and Sjmcellus. The value of Manetho’s work has been greatly enhanced by its manifest agreement in so many particulars with the testimonies of the monuments.
Another Egyptian historian is Eratosthenes of Cyrene, who was superintendent of the Alexandrian library somewhat later than the date of Manetho. He constructed a catalogue of kings of Egypt from information given him by the scribes of Thebes. This work also has perished, and our knowledge of it is derived from Syncellus, who copied the parts he has preserved from ApoUodorus of Athens. Herodotus and Diodorus Sicuhis come in as helps to the difficult task of arranging the order of the kings, and Ornish information derived from the inquiries made by them in the age in which they lived. These are the principal materials from which Egyptian history has to be compiled, and we now present a brief enumeration of the events of which it is composed.
